This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Testing of reverse debug commands
On Sunday 12 July 2009 19:49:58, Marc Khouzam wrote:
> From a frontend perspective, the current 'record' command is not very
> good.
> First, there is no MI equivalent, although that is not a big deal.
> But since it does not report error, the frontend must always assumes
> that
> the command worked.
Are you sure that is the case with "record"? I see `error' calls
in record.c:record_open. If there are some missing, let's add them.
> Below you can see that using 'record stop' directly will give a ^done
> instead of an ^error when it fails (although there is an error message
> but we don't parse those in Eclipse). Also, using -interpreter-exec
> is even worse as even the error message is gone.
Note that "record stop" is really a different command, although
it shares a common "record" prefix.
>
> (gdb)
> record stop
> &"record stop\n"
> ~"Process record is not started.\n"
> ^done
> (gdb)
> So, I think some improvement would be nice for frontends.
So, is this really an error? Hui seems to have thought
it wasn't. Hui? If it is, then it's just a matter of
changing the corresponding printf_unfiltered calls in
record.c to `error' calls (look for the "Process record is..." string).
Then MI will get an ^error,msg="foo", instead of a ~"foo" + ^done.
--
Pedro Alves